MikeOH

If there are already wires running through the grommet, then disconnect one of them, attach the new wire to the end, pull back through the grommet, then pull them both back. Just need enough extra length of the new wire to make this work.

Hmm, it's not nearly so much about the initial cost of the plane. What is your budget for actually FLYING whatever you buy? And, to that point, buying at the low end is going to increase your chances to spend more to keep it flying AFTER the initial purchase.

You aren't kidding! I installed mine about a month ago and it was ugly...the passenger side was worse than I expected, but I couldn't imagine the horror the pilot's side was! Honestly, when I finally got the clamp around the frame I have no idea how, but I sure was happy. Probably had 10 hours in the project by the time I was finished....maybe more.

Is that synonymous with the "Take-Off" setting?

Ok, interesting discussion. I'm going to be the heretic and suggest BOTH sets of numbers in the POH are correct! NOT an aeronautical engineer, but here's my reasoning: To state the obvious, it's excess horsepower over what is required to maintain level flight that allows the plane to climb. The IAS numbers that are decreasing are with the aircraft DIRTY, whereas the constant IAS figures are with a CLEAN configuration. My reasoning is that a lot of horsepower is being used to overcome the drag of the flaps and, especially, the gear. Drag depends linearly on the co-efficient of drag (Cd) but increases with the square of airspeed. I suspect the Cd of the gear is HUGE, compared to the Cd of a clean airframe alone. Thus, since you are already losing horsepower at higher density altitudes you don't want to waste all of it overcoming the drag of the gear, so a SLOWER IAS actually results in more 'leftover' horsepower for climb. To put it another way, if you tried to climb at 82 mph IAS when 'dirty' at high DA you might be using all the horsepower to overcome gear drag and would barely be climbing. Probably something flawed with my 'logic' here....Blast away!

Very nice of you to offer. I'll let you know if I need a ride.

Thanks for you post! Your details are a mirror of mine: when running cruise LOP #2 runs 330-340, and I've occasionally seen under 300 on the others, although they are usually around 310. I too, did the "Coke bottle test" with the same results; all flowed the same. A&P cleaned the injectors, too. But, made no difference. A couple of posters have indicated adjusting fuel flow at WOT; I'm at about 16.5 gph...maybe that should be higher an injected engine? I really need to try swapping probes...

Thanks guys! KFUL is real close to KPOC ...buying the pre-mix and doing it myself with my non-Mooney A&P to sign off is also tempting.

As a new owner I'm coming up on the 100 hour (Part II) gear actuator SB/AD and am looking for recommendations on Southern California shops that have done this. Want some confidence that they are competent to do this properly (I wonder how many know to mix 10% moly into the grease?) Hopfully, some first hand experiences. Thanks!

While not quite as high, I'm fighting the same issue on #2. Climbing at WOT, 2500, and 120 mph keeps mine under 400. I was seeing 415-420 before. I've looked at the baffles but probably not carefully enough. Not happy about it, but living with it for the time being. Good luck and please post if you end up finding the answer.

I have a '70 F (Injected) and am fighting the same #2 CHT issue: 20-30 hotter than the rest. I see just over 16 gph on takeoff. I've pretty much learned to pull back power when the #2 CHT hits 400, and cruise/climb at 120.

That would have been great! No way I'm taking the clamps off to weld on the nuts at this point!

Ah, bend the plastic enough to reach in with the wrench. Got it, thanks! In my case, I'll need to use an open end wrench as there is no way the box end has clearance to come off the nut after tightening. Thanks for the tip about using the painter's tape. Fishing the nut out of the belly does not sound like fun.

OMG! I really didn't need to have read that. Man, if could have had this done for $150, I would have been all over it. Good for you!!

Success!! In my case I had to work more towards the top, where the tube had become horizontal. I think you're right about the hand-built variation as I ended up needing to feed the clamp in from the front; pretty much tried that out of desperation after trying from the back. The 'ear' kept hanging up on the sheet metal corner when I pushed from the back. I'm still a bit confused on how the panel goes back on since it has to go on before the shoulder harness: How do you hold the nut on the back of clamp when the panel is already in place before you can tighten the bolt?

I assume you mean the sheet metal screws holding the skin to the tubing? I've removed them up the tubing on the vertical section, but not those underneath the headliner. I wasn't having much luck at the 'corner'; if you mean where the frame tubing goes from vertical by the window to horizontal at the roof. Good idea using the screwdriver to move the clamp down the tubing...once I FINALLY get the clamp around the tube! How did you handle cutting the trim to accommodate the mounting bolt? The way it assembles to the shoulder harness seems like I have to notch a cutout, rather than a simple hole. I don't see how I could mount the clamp and harness and put the window trim back on otherwise. Am I missing something?

Thanks! That was what I was thinking... remove the headliner and hope for the best.

Okay, I got the Alpha mounting kit from Spruce and the Hooker shoulder harnesses themselves. So, today I pulled the window trims out and got to work... Took me all of about five minutes to get the passenger side mount installed, but the pilot's side is turning into a real pain in the posterior!! Has anyone done this and know any 'tricks' as it's getting close to me running out of four-letter words? The damn thing just won't slide around the frame tubing without the mount 'ear' hanging up on the roof above the tubing. Any advice, help, new four-letter words would be appreciated!

Really sorry to hear of all your issues on a new to you plane. I'm a new M20F owner myself and, knock on wood, I've not had any avionics issues. I'm going to be the heretic here and suggest you get a quote on having the transponder fixed. And, at least have them take a look at the GPS issue. As a new owner we need to FLY our planes awhile before having them AOG for expensive upgrades Since I haven't had avionics issues I have no first hand experiences, but have heard Affordable Avionics at Chino is good.

BINGO! Again, be careful what you demand.

Best post in the whole damn thread, IMHO. Those that think their PPI/annual fee entitles them to free repairs regardless of what is later found are really looking for a cheap "extended warranty" Not the way it works. And, if pushed we may find ourselves without mechanics even willing to touch our 40 year old planes. Be careful what you demand.

Thanks, everyone. I'm going to order up the Hooker fixed type and the Alpha clamps.

Has anyone LEGALLY installed these as a minor mod without having to go through pull-test/structural analysis? I've tried to read up on the Advisory Circulars and Policy Letter, but am still a bit unclear if these can be installed legally. I don't think Hooker has an STC for Mooneys, and I don't want to stumble down the Field Approval path... Thanks in advance

KSBP sounds good to me, but I'd be up for any of the suggestions!